QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL | (CLAIMANT) | |
-v- | ||
GEORGE | (DEFENDANT) |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR A HOCKTON (instructed by Clyde & Co) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
“The Committee has comprehensively reviewed the order today. In doing so it has considered the information before it previously and the information presented to it today, including the detailed submissions you have made on behalf of Dr Abraham George, and Dr Abraham George's faxed letter addressed to the Chairman of the IOC dated 29th May 2004. The Committee has noted that Dr Abraham George has not attended today's hearing and that no application has been made by you on behalf of Dr Abraham George to adjourn today's hearing due to his absence. It has further noted that Dr Abraham George is waiting to undergo an assessment of his professional performance in accordance with the GMC's performance procedures. In all the circumstances, the Committee remains satisfied that it continues to be necessary for the protection of members of the public, in the public interest and in Dr Abraham George's own interests for his registration to remain suspended.
In reaching its decision, the Committee considers that there is cogent and credible prima facie evidence over a substantial period of time of substandard professional practice, dysfunctional behaviour towards colleagues, patients and their families, lack of insight and a failure to cooperate both with NHS complaints and child protection procedures. There is also cogent and credible prima facie evidence that deficiencies in his professional practice have led to disruption in the care of individual parents and their families, and in his relationships with medical colleagues and wider clinical teams. These allegations, if proven, demonstrate that Dr Abraham George may pose a serious risk to patients if he was to continue in practice and would also undermine the trust the public places in the profession.
The Committee has taken account of the issue of proportionality and has balanced the need to protect members of the public, the public interest and Dr Abraham George's own interests against the consequences for him of the suspension of his registration. Whilst it notes that its order has removed his ability to practise medicine it considers that the allegations against him are so serious and wide-ranging that there are no conditions which would adequately protect members of the public or the public interest. It is therefore satisfied that the order of suspension is a proportionate response.”
“Where the Interim Orders Committee are satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of a fully registered person, for the registration of that person to be suspended or to be made subject to conditions, the Committee may make such an order . . . ”
“The General Council may apply to the court for an order made by the Interim Orders Committee under subsection (1) or (3) to be extended, and may apply again for further extensions.”
“ . . . the standard of the defendant's professional performance may [I underline may] have been seriously deficient in the following areas:
(1) Relationships with parents of child patients;
(2) Working effectively with colleagues and within teams;
(3) Cooperation with complaints and other procedures;
(4) Respecting and protecting confidential information;
(5) Clinical knowledge and competence.”